News

The NHL announced nine and potentially 10 rule changes for the 2014-15 season that deal with the spin-o-rama, fining players and coaches for diving and the "puck first" rule on a breakaway. What do you think of the changes?

With less than a month to go until the start of a new season, the NHL announced 10 rule changes Thursday that cover a variety of areas. We'll go through the changes as theyappear on the NHL's site and I'll give my take on each.Rule 1.8 – Rink - Goalkeeper's Restricted AreaThe trapezoid will be expanded by two feet from the goal post on both sides of the net. This will give the goalie a little more room to freeze the puck and play with it around the net or as it comes off the boards. But c'mon - can we just get rid of the damn trapezoid altogether? More goalies struggle with handling the puck than help their teams by ejecting it to the neutral zone. And besides,Martin Brodeur isn't long for this league and the rule was brought in because of him.Rule 23 – Game Misconduct PenaltiesA new Game Misconduct category will be created. Clipping, charging, elbowing, interference, kneeing, head-butting and butt-ending move from the general category into the same category as boarding and checking from behind ("Physical Fouls"), whereby a player who incurs two such game misconducts in this category would now be automatically suspended for one game.

This is a good one. The NHL continues a crackdown on dumb-dumb penalties, the kind that never have and never will have a place in any level of the sport. Prior to these changes, if you received two game misconducts (five-minute majors) for either boarding or hitting from behind, you received an automatic one-game suspension and the possibility of further supplemental discipline. Now, that rule has been expanded to include these seven other infractions. You might look at this and wonder why interference is included among the more heinous transgressions, but remember, the game misconduct only comes in to play for five-minute majors. Basically, the league is attacking the needless "intent to injure" infractions by locking in an automatic one-game suspension, with the possibility for more. This rule isn't coming after the accidental penalty, but the dangerous ones. And to get suspended for it, you'd have to do it twice over the span of 41 games. Prior to this change, there were no specified fines or suspensions for some of these penalties (like head-butting), while others (like elbowing) had an automatic fine of, get this, $100. The only downside I see here is if the automatic one-game suspension makes the league less inclined to suspend a player for even longer.Rule 24 – Penalty ShotThe 'Spin-O-Rama' move, as described in Section 24.2 of the 2013-14 NHL Rule Book, will no longer be permitted either in Penalty Shot situations or in the Shootout. Some people erroneously thought this already was an illegal move because the puck wasn't always moving forward. But the NHL rulebook specifically named "spin-o-ramas" and declared them legal because the puck was in a "continuous motion." Spin-o-ramas became illegal if the puck ever stopped. But that's all changed and it's kind of ridiculous. Think about it: you decide regular season games on a skills competition and then you limit the type of skills a player can use? The spin-o-ramas were fun and made highlight reels, even if they were unfair to goalies. But who cares about playing fair with goalies? As long as they weren't being injured and bowled over, this was a fine move. Most rules these days are made in the mindset of creating as much offensive opportunity as possible - yet this one takes away one of the more exciting moves in the most boring part of a regular season game. Can't support this decision. Just get rid of the darn shootout and introduce a 3-2-1 points system already.Rule 38 – Video Goal JudgeVideo review will be expanded in the following areas:* Rule 38.4 (viii) has been modified to allow broader discretion to Hockey Operations to assist the referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g., to ensure they are "good hockey goals"). The revised Rule will allow Hockey Operations to correct a broader array of situations where video review clearly establishes that a "goal" or "no goal" call on the ice has been made in error. The new expanded rule will also allow Hockey Operations to provide guidance to referees on goal and potential goal plays where the referee has blown his whistle (or intended to blow his whistle) after having lost sight of the puck.* In reviewing "Kicked in Goals," Hockey Operations will require more demonstrable video evidence of a "distinct kicking motion" in order to overrule a "goal" call on the ice, or to uphold a "no goal" call on the ice. This looks like a pretty good rule - after all, it's vitally important to get the right call on a goal or non-goal. Where it's going to get tricky is on the second bullet point with kicked-in goals. The rules states that a goal must be disallowed if a distinct kicking motion propels the puck into the net. As we know, this isn't always as clear as it sounds. Is a distinct kicking motionany forward movement of the foot when it makes contact with the puck? Because if a player angles his skate to direct the puck towards the net, it sometimes does move toward the goal and certainly propels it. It's a murky rule that will go on as such, but now it seems the league will only rule a kicked-in goal illegal if it's an obvious back-and-forth kick. This might turn into one of those "when you see it, you know it" rules.Rule 57 – TrippingThe rule relating to "Tripping" will be revised to specifically provide that a two minute minor penalty will be assessed when a defending player "dives" and trips an attacking player with his body/arm/shoulder, regardless of whether the defending player is able to make initial contact with the puck.But, in situations where a penalty shot might otherwise be appropriate, if the defending player "dives" and touches the puck first (before the trip), no penalty shot will be awarded. (In such cases, the resulting penalty will be limited to a two-minute minor penalty for tripping.) I always liked the rule that allowed you to (inadvertently or not) trip a player who was coming in on your goalie as long as you hit the puck first. This gave the defensive team one, last desperate attempt to defend the net and if you were able to time it right, it was a good and exciting defensive play. But, alas, we live in an era where sports hate defense and re-write rules that are more favorable to offenses. In the end, this isn't a huge deal - you might argue that if a defense was beaten so badly that it has to dive at the puck, then it has no business getting back into the play anyway. Fair enough.Rule 64 – Diving / EmbellishmentThe supplementary discipline penalties associated with Rule 64.3 (Diving/Embellishment) will be revised to bring attention to and more seriously penalize players (and teams) who repeatedly dive and embellish in an attempt to draw penalties. Fines will be assessed to players and head coaches on a graduated scale outlined below. This is as potentially great as it is potentially awful. Whether or not a referee calls a player for diving or embellishment, it's completely independent from a later NHL ruling, so the effectiveness of this rule change is completely dependent on the supplemental discipline committee. If the league is serious, we should see a pile of fines - especially early on - because we all know diving is becoming a very real problem for the NHL. It's so obvious. On the other hand, how often did players get suspended for it before? How eager is the league actually going to be to fine the legitimate offendersand their coach? What if it's a star player like, say, Ryan Kesler? This is one that sounds great on paper, but in practice, but not accomplish much of anything at all. According to Pierre LeBrun, theNHL will announce these fines once a week. The jury is still out on this rule change.Rule 76 – Face-offsTo curb delay tactics on face-offs after icing infractions, in situations where the defending team is guilty of a face-off violation, following an icing, the defending player who is initially lined up for the face-off will be given a warning, but will be required to remain in the circle to take the face-off. A second face-off violation by the defending team in such situation will result in a two minute minor bench penalty. This is another one I like in theory. The idea is the team that just iced the puck can't delay play from resuming by "accidentally" getting thrown out of the face-off dot and giving his team a few more seconds to recover. Now, the player gets one warning, stays at the dot, and if he lines up illegally again, a penalty will ensue. But teams cheat all the time in the draw anyway and you never, ever see a team penalized for encroachment. This rule should at least make the game start back up a little quicker, though, which is a win for fans.Rule 84 – Overtime* Teams will switch ends prior to the start of overtime in the regular season.* The entire ice surface will undergo a "dry scrape" prior to the start of overtime in the regular season.* The procedure requiring the head coach to submit a list of the first three shooters in the shoot-out has been eliminated. These rules are also designed to speed up the game a little more. These are relatively minor changes to current rules, but the most noticeable one here is that the coach no longer has to submit a list of the first three players he's going to use in the shootout. The next step should be to use international shootout rules and allow any player to shoot as many times as the coach wants after the first three shooters go. Call it theT.J. Oshie rule. If you're going to make us sit through a shootout, let's see the best players go against each other round after round until the game is decided. It is, after all, a skills competition.Rule 85 – Puck Out of BoundsThere have been further rule changes made relating to face-off location to avoid penalizing teams for plays intended to create bona fide scoring opportunities. Specifically, the following are "categories of plays" where face-offs will remain in the attacking zone despite the fact that the attacking team was technically responsible for the stoppage in play: Shots at the net by a player on the attacking team where: (i) the shot breaks the glass; (ii) the shot goes off the side of the net and deflects out of play; (iii) the shot goes off the dasher boards or glass and deflects out of play; (iv) the shot is tipped or deflected out of play by a teammate; and (v) the shot becomes wedged in or on the exterior of the goal net. Remember how I mentioned that almost every rule change is made with more offense in mind? Here's another one. Now, as long as the offensive player doesn't directly shoot the puck up into the stands or netting, his team will still get an offensive zone draw even if they were the last ones to touch the puck. All of the examples listed above are accidental puck ejections that penalized a team for trying to play offense. I can get behind this change, too, because under the old rules, the defensive team was getting a helpful bonus without actually doing anything to earn it. Just like a winger fighting for possession with a pinching defenseman along the boards, you have to earn your way out of the defensive zone. This rule re-enforces that tradition by making the defensive team get the puck out of the zone on its own.In addition, the following rule change will be enacted for the 2014 preseason and may be continued for the 2014/15 regular season if approved by the League and the NHLPA.Rule 1.9 – Rink – Face-off Spots and Circles – Ice Markings/Hash MarksThe hash marks at the end zone circles will be moved from three feet apart to five feet, seven inches apart (international markings). This potential rule change takes a page out of the Olympic rule book and applies it to NHL ice. It separates the wingers a little bit more - will be interesting to see the impact it has in the pre-season.Follow Rory on Twitter

Bettman says next season's salary cap could go ‘a couple or so million up'

News

Bettman says next season's salary cap could go ‘a couple or so million up'

The NHL could be looking at a $2 million rise in the salary cap for next season, but early projections should be taken with a grain of salt. In December 2015, a potential rise of $3 million was projected. The upper limit increased by only $1.6 million.

It’s still far too soon to tell, but early estimations have it looking like the salary cap could jump up as much as $2 million ahead of the 2017-18 campaign.

Following the NHL’s Board of Governors meetings on Thursday, commissioner Gary Bettman was asked about what the league sees as a potential cap for the upcoming campaign, which, among other things, will see the introduction of the league’s 31st franchise in the Vegas Golden Knights.

Bettman didn’t give an exact figure as to what the cap will look like, but he said there’s the potential for the upper limit to move by roughly $2 million.

"There's always a range, but it's something we're going to have to look at very carefully in terms of how may be best to approach it," Bettman said, according to NHL.com’s Dan Rosen. "The cap could range from where it is now to a couple or so million up, but we're going to all have to focus on what makes most sense going forward.”

Any increase in the cap would be good news for the players, especially pending unrestricted free agents looking to land long-term, big-money deals. St. Louis Blues defenseman Kevin Shattenkirk and Tampa Bay Lightning netminder Ben Bishop are two of the biggest names currently slated to hit the open market come July 2017.

Of course, there’s a chance the cap stays flat, which Bettman also indicated, but said he’d prefer to speak with the NHLPA about a possible flat cap before answering questions about it.

Before any GMs with tight cap situations or fans who’re praying their respective teams get some cap breathing room go celebrating, it’s worth noting that early projections for the 2016-17 salary cap saw the upper limit increasing by close to $3 million. That would have seen the cap rise from $71.4 million to $74.5 million, and anyone paying close attention to the financials of the league’s teams is aware that rise in the upper limit didn’t quite come to fruition.

Instead, the cap for the current campaign is $71.4 million, and the rise is mostly thanks to the NHLPA using their five-percent “escalator clause.” Had the players not used the clause, there was some concern the cap could have actually dipped from the past season to the current campaign. Some projections had the cap possibly falling below $70 million for 2016-17.

A rise of $2 million would be only slightly more than the $1.6 million increase from 2015-16 to 2016-17, and it would be one of the smallest increases since the salary cap was introduced in 2005-06. From 2008-09 to 2009-10, the cap rose by only $100,000 and there was no rise in the cap from 2011-12 to 2013-14, with teams allowed to spend to a $60-million limit during the 2012-13 lockout-shortened campaign.

Fantasy hockey mailbag: what happened to the run-and-gun Capitals?

News

Fantasy hockey mailbag: what happened to the run-and-gun Capitals?

We're far enough into the season that certain players' slow starts have become more than that. Is it time to cut bait on formerly reliable studs like Kuznetsov?

It's almost time to toss "don't panic" talk out the window in fantasy hockey leagues. Slow starts are insurmountable at this juncture in most pools, but GMs should start identifying and assessing their problem areas. Some struggling stars can still shake off their slumps, but others are showing legitimate red flags right now. The sample sizes are big enough to warrant worrying in certain cases.

That seems to be the theme of almost every question I received for this month's mailbag. Plenty of you find yourselves at crossroads with some typically valuable fantasy commodities. Let's see if I can help you make some tough decisions.

Austin Gagne (@gagne31): Who are the top 10 prospects outside the NHL?

Fun question, Austin, and I'll use it as a chance to plug our recent special THN magazine, Prospects Unlimited. In that edition, we ranked the top 100 players aged 21 and younger at any level. That included current NHLers, players drafted to the NHL but not yet playing there, and even youngsters years away from their draft years. As for a top 10 prospects outside the NHL, I'll pull the best 10 from Prospects Unlimited. I'll include their overall rank too (as they're mixed in with 21-and-under NHLers like Connor McDavid and Auston Matthews, too):

Dylan Strome, C (9th)

Joe Veleno, C (17th)

Nolan Patrick, C (21st)

Timothy Liljegren, D (22nd)

Ilya Samsonov, G (24th)

Kyle Connor, LW (26th)

Pierre-Luc Dubois, D (27th)

Olli Juolevi, D (28th)

Oliver Wahlstrom, C (30th)

Clayton Keller, C (31st)

Note the inclusion of Connor. He just got sent to the AHL, so he's not an NHLer right now.

Ryan Kleinau (@rkleinau): Will Semyon Varlamov ever turn it around, or is keeping him as one of my two starting goalies a mistake?

Varlamov is undoubtedly better than his season numbers suggest. He's actually improved a bit of late, posting a .926 save percentage over his past eight appearances. Still, it's understandable to be concerned about him. He has a bad team playing in front of him. He regularly faces 30 to 40 shots in a game. He has a good backup behind him in Calvin Pickard. If your league is relatively deep and relies on volume goalie stats such as saves, however, I wouldn't cut bait on Varlamov yet. Your best-case scenario might be a real-life trade that puts him on a better team. It could happen.

If you can move Fleury for another goaltender with a clearer path to regular starts, go for it. We know the Penguins can't finish the year with Fleury and Murray, as it would mean losing Murray in the expansion draft (Fleury has to be protected because of his no-movement clause). So rather than sit on a platoon and wait for a Fleury trade, why not use him to secure yourself goalies from three different teams, increasing your ceiling of starts? That said, I wouldn't rush to move Fleury for a skater, especially if teams in your league carry many goalies and rotate them, as you won't get enough starts from just Murray alone. If you can buy low on a Freddie Andersen type for Fleury, though, do it.

This is a slam-dunk. Any team acquiring Laine in a keeper pool is in good shape. And you get Larkin coming your way on top of that? This one's a no brainer. Laine is a top-10 forward commodity already in keeper formats.

Harold P (@howie379): Do you like Patrick Maroon from Edmonton?

He's a handy and underrated player in fantasy. I have him on my team in my most important league. He's played 45 games as an Oiler over the past two seasons, amassing 16 goals, 27 points, 62 penalty minutes and 100 hits. Pro-rated to an 82-game season: 29 goals, 49 points, 113 PIM, 182 hits. That's a valuable stat line in any league. He's a nice depth option who gets chances to play with Connor McDavid from time to time.

I'll single out three top-flight producers from last year: Johnny Gaudreau, Anze Kopitar and Aleksander Barkov.

The three-week injury layoff seemed to do 'Johnny Hockey' wonders, as he's returned to the lineup possessed, with three straight two-point games. He's making up for lost time. It wouldn't be remotely surprising to see him score at a top-five rate the rest of the year.

As for Kopitar, he's done this before. He had 13 points in 23 games through the end of November last season, then had 61 points in 58 games from December onward. He'll be just fine.

Barkov, though, is probably my favorite buy-low in the whole league right now. He's scoring on just 7.7 percent of his shots and is a 12.8 percent career shooter, so he's in store for positive regression. He's an outstanding possession player who generates lots of shot attempts. He's already starting to come out of his slump, with 10 points in his past 11 games. The overall season line of 5-13-18 in 28 games doesn't look too special, though, so it's worth trying to steal him in a trade from an oblivious owner.

Bad sign: I chose Kuznetsov for the main photo in the previous mailbag, too. It's been a problem all season. Owners understandably drafted him expecting a top-10 scorer after he was one last year. So what on Earth is wrong with the kid? We can't blame it on deployment. Kuznetsov's most common linemate this season has been Alex Ovechkin, and Kuznetsov's ice time has been virtually identical to last year's. On one hand, Kuznetsov has some of the game's best pure hands, and he's bound to get hot at some point, so he's a decent buy-low target. On the other hand, if you're buying low, aim to get him for 75 cents on the dollar. Don't give up too much, as he's shown some red flags. Kuznetsov shot the puck 2.35 times per game last year and has tumbled to 1.60 this year. He seems to be more hesitant. Concern is officially warranted.

As for Burakovsky, he's just not quite established yet as a consistently dangerous NHL scorer. He's prone to streaks and slumps, and he doesn't always play on Barry Trotz's top two lines. I wouldn't blame anyone for dropping him, but the funny thing is…if you do, I'd advise other GMs to scoop him up. His shooting percentage is way below his norm, and his upside makes him worth a one-week flier for any team.

Chris Pumo (cpumo21): What's up with Filip Forsberg???

Forsberg's struggles are a fluke in my eyes. He still gets lots of ice time. His shooting percentage is ridiculously low. He'll go on a tear soon enough. Don't worry about him.

Terry Cain (@tcain47): Due for a comeback or not: Patrice Bergeron? Tyler Johnson?

Bergeron for sure. He remains an absolutely elite defensive forward, the sport's best, and will always get oodles of ice time as a result. Bergeron is also shooting the puck at close to his normal rate. The pucks will start going in. He's due for a huge surge. Johnson, on the other hand, confounds me a bit. It's starting to look like his 72-point breakout of 2014-15 was an anomaly.

Jasoc Pullen (@JacobPullen): Will Jamie Benn get back to normal?

I think he will. He's still producing at close to a point per game. It's possible Benn just needed time to get physically comfortable after recovering from core muscle surgery, which forced him out of the World Cup. I predict a big second half.

Holland had been left in Toronto as the Maple Leafs opened a three-game western road trip in late November and has not suited up for the Leafs since Nov. 26. The 6-foot-2, 195-pound forward was a healthy scratch in 17 of the Leafs first 25 games this season.

In eight games, Holland has one assist and a minus-2 rating while averaging 10:43 in ice time a night. Holland is on a one-year, $1.3 million contract this season, and according to CapFriendly, is owed $881,111 for the remainder of the season.

"Peter is a big, solid centerman with good NHL experience," Coyotes general manager John Chayka said in a statement. "We look forward to having him join our team."

Acquired from the Anaheim Ducks in November 2013, the Caledon, Ontario native appeared in 174 games with the Leafs, over parts of four seasons, scoring 25 goals and 63 points.

The 25-year-old also played a role in the American Hockey League’s Toronto Marlies reaching a seventh game of the conference finals during the 2014 Calder Cup playoffs.

For the Leafs, the move gives general manager Lou Lamoriello another contract spot to work with. Prior to the deal, Toronto had 48 contracts – two shy of the maximum of 50.

Friday’s move gives the Leafs the flexibility to sign goaltender Karri Ramo to a contract for the remainder of the season. The 30-year-old signed a professional tryout with the Marlies on Tuesday and made 33 saves in 3-2 loss to the Utica Comets on Wednesday night.

Since waiving goaltender Jhonas Enroth on Tuesday, and assigning him to the Marlies, the Leafs are looking for a suitable veteran presence behind Frederik Andersen and Ramo could fill the void.

The trade with the Coyotes also gives Lamoriello roster flexibility to activate forward Josh Leivo off non-roster injury reserve. Leivo has yet to play this season due to a lower body injury. The 23-year-old played five games with the Marlies earlier in the season as part of a conditioning assignment, but was deemed not ready to return to NHL action with the Leafs.

Down Goes Brown: The NHL’s five most confusing players

News

Down Goes Brown: The NHL’s five most confusing players

From big off-season acquisitions struggling to oft-maligned players proving their worth, the NHL has its fair share of players who are hard to figure out.

I'm still confused.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the NHL's five most confusing teams, at least from my perspective. These were the teams that I just couldn't figure out. Were they good? Bad? Somewhere in the middle? I'd spent the season trying to work it out, and come up empty.

As it turned out, I wasn't alone. More than a few readers confessed to being confused by those teams too, not to mention several others. It was like having a support group. A support group of confused hockey fans, all watching the games unfold with their heads tilted like a puppy seeing a toilet flush for the first time.

Well, today I'm going to call another meeting of the confused hockey fan network. But this time, we're not looking at teams. No, today we're going to dive into some specific players that have me perplexed. In most of these cases, I thought I had a handle on things. But now I'm not so sure.

Maybe you can help me out. Or maybe you're just as confused as I am. Either way, I think it will be good for my soul to admit that I just can't figure these guys out.

Brian Elliott

What I thought I knew: After an up-and-down start to this NHL career, Elliott had settled in to a predictable pattern with the Blues. He'd play well. He'd post strong numbers, sometimes even league-leading ones. And then, just when push came to shove, the Blues would lose faith in him and hand the starter's job to someone else. Maybe it was the backup. Maybe it was a pricey trade acquisition. Maybe it was even a semi-retired legend, in a move we'd all agree to just pretend never happened. But time and time again, the Blues had no faith in Elliott.

And I was convinced that they were wrong. This was the classic case of a team over-thinking things, or maybe letting dressing room politics or a faith in intangibles override basic logic. The numbers didn't lie: Elliott was one of the best goalies in the league. And when the Flames nabbed him at a discount in the offseason, I was sure that they'd found their starter.

Where I'm at now: Sitting around wondering what happened. Which is also where Elliott finds himself most games these days.

Chad Johnson has been a great story, and you can't blame the Flames for riding the hot hand. Elliott got off to a bad start, and when you're a young team that hasn't earned a ton of self-confidence quite yet, you can't let yourself fall too far out of the race. The Flames are being smart here.

But… Elliott is still good, right? Every goalie has the occasional slump, so we can't panic over 13 games. Then again, Elliott's never really done much outside of Ken Hitchcock's goalie factory, and the Blues still didn't believe in him. Did they know something that the rest of us, including the Flames, somehow missed?

Bobby Ryan

What I thought I knew: Remember when Ryan was left off of Team USA in 2014, partly because Brian Burke didn't think he could spell "intense"? What a ridiculous snub that was. Hey guys, 30-goal scorers in their prime don't exactly grow on trees.

Well, sure, I imagine Senator fans were already in the loop on this one. But it feels like the rest of us have been slow to realize that Ryan just hasn't been the same player in Ottawa that he was in Anaheim. His best year since the 2013 trade was only 23 goals, and that was back in 2013-14. This year, he has just three goals through 21 games.

In hindsight, maybe we should have seen that coming. Ryan was 26 when the trade went down, and in today's NHL, that's already past the peak of many forwards. But the Senators clearly thought they were getting an elite player with some big seasons left in him – remember, we're just two years removed from them handing him a $50-million contract.

Ryan's had to overcome some tough hurdles in his life, including the loss of his mother this summer. It still feels like he could rebound and reclaim his status as a first-line player. But if not, the budget-conscious Senators may be stuck with an ugly-looking contract that they can't really afford.

Tyler Bozak

What I thought I knew: Any Leaf fan who was paying attention was in on this one. Sure, Bozak had put up some decent stats over the years, but he'd done it as Phil Kessel's sidekick, inexplicably getting all the playing time with Toronto's best player and reaping the rewards. And even then, his numbers had been just OK, never topping 50 points in a season and struggling in his own end.

It was a classic case of a superstar propping up an also-ran. And once Kessel was shipped out of town, we'd see the real Tyler Bozak.

Where I'm at now: Hey, it turns out the real Tyler Bozak is pretty good.

Not "first line center" good. Certainly not "team MVP" good, despite some of the sillier hype from the Kessel era. But his production hasn't cratered without his superstar wingman. In fact, it's improved slightly, and he's on pace for the most productive season of his career this year.

Maybe he's benefitting from the Leafs finally having some depth at center. Maybe he's embracing his role as the "dad figure" on one of the league's youngest rosters. Or maybe he was just better than I thought he was all along.

John Klingberg

What I thought I knew: He's easily one of the best young offensive defensemen in the league.

Where I'm at now: Pretty much the same place. Which is why what's going on in Dallas right now is so hard to figure out.

Last month, Lindy Ruff made Klingberg a healthy scratch, and everyone went "What?" Then we found out that Klingberg had missed a team meeting, so fair enough — the rules apply to everyone. But then last week he was scratched again, this time for performance reasons.

And sure enough, he hasn't been great this year. He's on pace for the worst offensive totals of his career, and he's getting creamed on possession, where he'd previously been very solid. Sure, maybe nobody would look good in front of that Dallas goaltending. And Ruff is carrying eight defenseman, which makes his decisions tougher. But Klingberg really has looked off this year, and with a 98.5 PDO, this isn't all about bad luck and shaky percentages. Something's wrong.

We're talking about a guy who finished sixth in the Norris voting last year, in just his second NHL season. It looked like the Stars had themselves a poor man's Erik Karlsson in the making. Maybe they still do. But this season has turned a sure thing into a major question mark.

Kris Russell

What I thought I knew: No clue. None. He seems like a good guy. Smallish, and without any especially flashy numbers, but he always seemed like a nice underdog story who'd overachieved over the years on a long path towards earning some respect. I usually like those kind of stories.

But over the last few years, Russell has somehow morphed into the poster child for the debate between analytics and old school. And you're not allowed to stake out a middle ground. You have to either think he's the second coming of Scott Stevens, willing his team to victory by sheer force of heart, or you have to think he's hot garbage. Those are your only two options. And you better choose quickly, because as soon as his name get mentioned, everybody is going to start yelling.

Where I'm at now: SO MUCH YELLING!

Honestly, I have no idea. When Russell hit free agency this summer, I thought the big numbers being thrown around were a little ridiculous. So did the league, apparently, since he had to settle for a one-year deal with the Oilers. That seemed like a good fit, and you figured Russell could settle in, put together a decent season, and take another shot at a big UFA payday next year.

No such luck. No, apparently we all have to keep fighting the Great Kris Russell Battle until the end of time. Is he good? Bad? What position does he even play? Nobody remembers.

We have always been at war with Kris Russell. Now pick a side and go yell at somebody about it.

Sean McIndoe has been writing about the NHL since 2008, most recently for ESPN and Grantland. He spends most of his time making jokes on twitter, where you may know him as @downgoesbrown. He appears weekly on TheHockeyNews.com.